ED FISHER: Rethinking same-sex marriage

Monday, April 8, 2013

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments regarding California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, both of which intend to limit marriage to one man and one woman. We will have to wait until the Court releases its decision in June.

The whole notion of marriage has changed dramatically over the centuries. Psychology Today said, “Through most of Western civilization, marriage has been more a matter of money, power and survival than of delicate sentiments. In medieval Europe, everyone from the lord of the manor to the village locals had a say in deciding who should wed. Love was considered an absurdly flimsy reason for a match. Even during the Enlightenment and Victorian eras, adultery and friendship were often more passionate than marriage.” (www.psychologytoday.com.)

Until the third century, the church had no role whatsoever. It was St. Paul who developed the notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract. He compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church. The word church in this context has no gender.

Pope Nicholas I declared in 866, “If the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void.” This shows the importance of a couple’s consent to marriage.

In the “Power of Myth,” Joseph Campbell (with Bill Moyers, Anchor Edition, 1991) declares that the 12th century troubadours were the first ones who thought of courtly love in the same way we do now. The whole notion of romance apparently didn’t exist until medieval times. Love is essential to a good marriage.

Until the 16th century there were many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony. It often involved a legal contract by which the groom received the bride’s possessions, as either a dowry or her inheritance.

The Council of Trent decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. The notion of a binding agreement between couples is the glue of marriage.

As part of the Protestant Reformation, the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state. By the 17th century, many of the Protestant countries of European had state involvement in marriage.

In 2002, the Census Bureau reported that about 50 percent of marriages taking place would eventually end in divorce. (www.divorcereform.org.) More recently, according to the New York Times, it has been revised downward to just over 40 percent. Reasons include poor communication, financial problems, a lack of commitment, a change in priorities, infidelity, failed expectations or unmet needs, addictions and substance abuse, physical, sexual or emotional abuse, and lack of conflict-resolution skills. There has been a steady rise in the need for Women’s Aid and shelters. Even marriages performed in churches can go wrong. (April 4, 2005, www.nytimes.com.)

Throughout history, a slice of hateful people have burned “witches” and “heretics”, justified slavery, hanged “outlaws” for no valid reason, persecuted those of other religions than their own, resented immigrants (“They ain’t like us…”), and more recently refused to accept mixed-racial marriage.

In each case, our society mellowed and the more rational prevailed. Reason trumped emotion.

People under 30 are much more likely to see same-sex marriage as a positive step toward reducing the stinging prejudice held by some. People do not choose to be homosexual; their physical and psychological characteristics, as well as their roles and behavior may differ from heterosexuals.

Sex and gender don’t always coincide. If a couple is drawn to each other, let them decide on their union. We all want and should have equality under the law. Let Michigan pass legislation like the one New York did in 2011, legalizing same-sex marriage.